[Cite as Hancock v. Ohio State Penitentiary, 2010-Ohio-6685.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

CHRISTOPHER L. HANCOCK 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO STATE PENITENTIARY 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-07504-AD 

Clerk Miles C. Durfey 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, Christopher L. Hancock, an inmate incarcerated at 

defendant, Ohio State Penitentiary (OSP), filed this action alleging that a gold cross and 

chain intended for him was lost as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of OSP 

mailroom personnel in handling mail delivered by the United State Postal Service 

(USPS). Plaintiff related that his grandmother purchased a gold cross and chain and 

arranged for the seller to mail the item through the USPS to OSP where it was received 

on February 16, 2010. Plaintiff further related that the described jewelry item was 

insured and when it was received at OSP a mailroom employee identified as “Officer 

Stradrick” signed for the necklace and cross pendant on February 16, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. 

Plaintiff claimed that the gold chain with attached cross was never forwarded to his 

possession after it was received at the OSP mailroom. Plaintiff seeks damage recovery 

in the amount of $433.01, the total stated purchase price of the jewelry, plus insurance 

cost. Plaintiff submitted documentation confirming his damage claim amount. Plaintiff 

submitted documentation from the USPS confirming a parcel addressed to him was 

received at the OSP mailroom and delivered to OSP personnel. The filing fee was paid. 
{¶ 2} 2) Defendant acknowledged that OSP personnel picked up mail for 

inmates at the local post office on February 16, 2010. Defendant explained that the 

procedure involved for mail pick up advising that “post office staff brought out the bin of 

mail which was loaded in a vehicle and transported to” OSP. Defendant maintained that 

when the mail transported from the post office to OSP was sorted, “there was no 

necklace or cross located in the incoming mail.” Defendant noted that the OSP 

employee who sorted the mail denied a cross and chain intended for plaintiff was 

among the mail sorted on February 16, 2010. The claim file is devoid of any statement 

of any type from the OSP employee who handled incoming inmate mail on February 16, 

2010. Defendant did not identify the OSP employee who sorted mail on February 16, 

2010. Defendant contended that plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove 

his cross and chain jewelry item was lost or stolen while under the control of OSP 

personnel. Defendant asserted that evidence is inconclusive to establish whether 

plaintiff’s jewelry was lost or stolen while under the control of the USPS or OSP. 

{¶ 3} 3) Plaintiff filed a response insisting that his mailed jewelry item was lost 

or stolen while under the control of OSP staff. Plaintiff pointed out that his submitted 

documentation shows that “an OSP staff member did in fact sign for the necklace and 

cross.” Plaintiff asserted that he has produced sufficient evidence to prove his property 

item was lost or stolen while under the control of defendant. The trier of fact agrees. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶ 4} 1) In order to prevail, plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that defendant owed him a duty, that defendant breached that duty, and that 

defendant’s breach proximately caused his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy Company, 

Inc., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573,¶8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, 

Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 75, 77, 15 OBR 179, 472 N.E. 2d 707. 

{¶ 5} 2) “Whether a duty is breached and whether the breach proximately 

caused an injury are normally questions of fact, to be decided by . . . the court . . .” 

Pacher v. Invisible Fence of Dayton, 154 Ohio App. 3d 744, 2003-Ohio-5333,¶41, citing 

Miller v. Paulson (1994), 97 Ohio App. 3d 217, 221, 646 N.E. 2d 521; Mussivand v. 

David (1989), 45 Ohio St. 3d 314, 318, 544 N.E. 2d 265. 

{¶ 6} 3) Although not strictly responsible for a prisoner’s property, defendant 

had at least the duty of using the same degree of care as it would use with its own 
property. Henderson v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1979), 76-0356-AD. 

{¶ 7} 4) This court in Mullett v. Department of Correction (1976), 76-0292-AD, 

held that defendant does not have the liability of an insurer (i.e., is not liable without 

fault) with respect to inmate property, but that it does have the duty to make “reasonable 

attempts to protect, or recovery” such property. 

{¶ 8} 5) Plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that he suffered a loss and that this loss was proximately caused by 

defendant’s negligence. Barnum v. Ohio State University (1977), 76-0368-AD. 

{¶ 9} 6) Plaintiff must produce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for 

the conclusion defendant’s conduct is more likely than not a substantial factor in 

bringing about the harm. Parks v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1985), 

85-01546-AD. 

{¶ 10} 7) The credibility of witnesses and the weight attributable to their 

testimony are primarily matters for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St. 

2d 230, 39 O.O. 2d 366, 227 N.E. 2d 212, paragraph one of the syllabus. The court is 

free to believe or disbelieve, all or any part of each witness’s testimony. State v. Antill

(1964), 176 Ohio St. 61, 26 O.O. 2d 366, 197 N.E. 2d 548. The court finds plaintiff’s 

assertions persuasive concerning the loss of his property. Conversely, the court does 

not find defendant’s assertions credible regarding its denial plaintiff’s property was 

delivered into the custody of OSP staff. 

{¶ 11} 8) Negligence on the part of defendant has been shown in respect to 

the issue of property protection. Billups v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

(2001), 2000-10634-AD. Consequently, defendant is liable to plaintiff for the damages 

claimed, $433.01, plus the $25.00 filing fee which may be reimbursed as compensable 

costs pursuant to R.C. 2335.19. See Bailey v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction (1990), 62 Ohio Misc. 2d 19, 587 N.E. 2d 990.

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 
CHRISTOPHER L. HANCOCK 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO STATE PENITENTIARY 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-07504-AD 

Clerk Miles C. Durfey 

ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE

DETERMINATION

 Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth 

in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor 

of plaintiff in the amount of $458.01, which includes the filing fee. Court costs are 

assessed against defendant. 

 

 MILES C. DURFEY 

 Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Christopher L. Hancock Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 

878 Coitsville-Hubbard Road Department of Rehabilitation 

Youngstown, Ohio 44505 and Correction 

 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

RDK/laa 

12/9 

Filed 12/29/10 

Sent to S.C. reporter 2/25/11